Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bbcode.php on line 2958
Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader? - Page 3
Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 49

Thread: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,474

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by imi View Post
    ...
    Declared war Great Britain on Germany September 3, 1939, 11 a.m. along with France in September 3, 1939, 5 p.m. (and along the same day with India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa)
    They Brits could not stand alone with the Germans and a declaration of war only dig their own graves in
    With full knowledge that Germany could not feasibly invade Britain as they were too weak on the high seas, even with Italy's help. The British and French were also confident that they held a huge strategic advantage in a long conflict and would be able to strangle Germany the way they did in WWI and outproduce them. The rapid Fall of France was due to a massively risky gamble on the part of the Germans as their inital "Fall Blau" war plan was little more than a defensive preparation and the early drafts of Fall Gelb were essentially extremely conservative replays of the Schleiffen Plan that might have resulted in a strategic deadlock at best - and a German attritional defeat at worst. The eventual Fall Gelb & Fall Rot German war plans often mistakenly simplified as "Blitzkrieg" were the result of absolute desperation that allowed Heer Gen. Halder to adopt and then tweak Manstein's plan of strategic envelopment as a desperate, risky gamble in his view..

    Hitler not plan to attack England or France not yet in 1939 and shortly before 1939 made a 25-year contract to peace contest with France, which kicked the French side in September 3 1939
    Actually he demanded an attack in October of 1939 and Halder bulwarked him knowing that such an early attack through Belgium would have resulted in a strategic deadlock in the best case scenario, and eventual defeat in the worst case. Another offensive was delayed until November, cleverly by Halder, knowing that a winter offensive would be unthinkable even by the Fuhrer. The lack of an early German war plan (Fall Blau) against France was a purely defensive relic of their strategic vulnerability inflicted by the Versailles Treaty, but was soon rewritten with the mobilization of the Heer and the formation of combined arms operational planning. And by this time the Germans knew full well the Anglo-French reaction to their offensive as they essentially had a dry run after two German senior officers' plane crashed in Belgium relieving the initial German plans to seize much of Belgium as a springboard for a more ambitious future offensive. One of many great strokes of luck the Germans had, all all the French strokes of luck were bad ones...
    Last edited by Nickdfresh; 06-23-2016 at 10:39 AM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    -
    Posts
    759

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    But the British Commonwealth fought alone against Germany until mid-1941 when the USSR became involved in theatres which had nothing to do with the British Commonwealth theatres. Also, Britain provided support to the USSR while the USSR never provided support of any significance to any force outside the USSR.

    Even after mid-1941, the British Commonwealth fought in other land theatres either alone (North Africa, Malaya, Burma) or with sparse other nation's forces (e.g. NEI).

    How successful was the Kriegsmarine compared with the Royal Navy in supporting their respective operational and strategic aims?
    because Hitler did not deal particularly with the English, if Hitler really wanted to overrun full force all over England. He did not consider it a serious military force England
    Anyway Hitler did not want war with England, the British declared war on the Germans in 1939
    After the First World War, Hitler the then well understands English - French enmity against the Germans wich is apparently which it proved in september 1st, 1939 when the Polish campaign begins
    "The consciousness that I am alive, makes me wild dreams every day"
    (Helmut Wolff lieutenant colonel, one who survived the breakout of Budapest)

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    -
    Posts
    759

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    With full knowledge that Germany could not feasibly invade Britain as they were too weak on the high seas, even with Italy's help. The British and French were also confident that they held a huge strategic advantage in a long conflict and would be able to strangle Germany the way they did in WWI and outproduce them. The rapid Fall of France was due to a massively risky gamble on the part of the Germans as their inital "Fall Blau" war plan was little more than a defensive preparation and the early drafts of Fall Gelb were essentially extremely conservative replays of the Schleiffen Plan that might have resulted in a strategic deadlock at best - and a German attritional defeat at worst. The eventual Fall Gelb & Fall Rot German war plans often mistakenly simplified as "Blitzkrieg" were the result of absolute desperation that allowed Heer Gen. Halder to adopt and then tweak Manstein's plan of strategic envelopment as a desperate, risky gamble in his view..



    Actually he demanded an attack in October of 1939 and Halder bulwarked him knowing that such an early attack through Belgium would have resulted in a strategic deadlock in the best case scenario, and eventual defeat in the worst case. Another offensive was delayed until November, cleverly by Halder, knowing that a winter offensive would be unthinkable even by the Fuhrer. The lack of an early German war plan (Fall Blau) against France was a purely defensive relic of their strategic vulnerability inflicted by the Versailles Treaty, but was soon rewritten with the mobilization of the Heer and the formation of combined arms operational planning. And by this time the Germans knew full well the Anglo-French reaction to their offensive as they essentially had a dry run after two German senior officers' plane crashed in Belgium relieving the initial German plans to seize much of Belgium as a springboard for a more ambitious future offensive. One of many great strokes of luck the Germans had, all all the French strokes of luck were bad ones...
    If Germany after the French campaign immediately smoothly invade England
    After the French invasion of the country by the Germans for quite easily have been carried out with heavy artillery support perhaps from the area of Calais France, and with the help of the Kriegsmarine to fight against the Royal Navy with battleships and uboots and transport the Wehrmacht troops to England, and with the help of Luftwaffe bombers to attack the Royal Navy and transport German Paratroopers units

    Hitler committed a big mistake when it did not deal with the British after the 1940 French campaign, rather turned against Russia
    "The consciousness that I am alive, makes me wild dreams every day"
    (Helmut Wolff lieutenant colonel, one who survived the breakout of Budapest)

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,474

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by imi View Post
    because Hitler did not deal particularly with the English, if Hitler really wanted to overrun full force all over England. He did not consider it a serious military force England
    Anyway Hitler did not want war with England, the British declared war on the Germans in 1939
    After the First World War, Hitler the then well understands English - French enmity against the Germans wich is apparently which it proved in september 1st, 1939 when the Polish campaign begins
    The "French enmity" was returned in spades by the Germans as a result of Versailles, the hated Occupation of the Rhineland after WWI, and the general history of belligerence between the two...

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,474

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by imi View Post
    If Germany after the French campaign immediately smoothly invade England
    After the French invasion of the country by the Germans for quite easily have been carried out with heavy artillery support perhaps from the area of Calais France, and with the help of the Kriegsmarine to fight against the Royal Navy with battleships and uboots and transport the Wehrmacht troops to England, and with the help of Luftwaffe bombers to attack the Royal Navy and transport German Paratroopers units

    Hitler committed a big mistake when it did not deal with the British after the 1940 French campaign, rather turned against Russia
    Um, no. The Germans didn't have landing craft (just shitty converted river barges) and had a profound lack of shipping both naval and merchant. You're delusional if you think they could have "easily" pulled off the invasion. A simulation of Sea Lion held in the early 1970's complete with surviving commanders from both sides predicted that the German Heer became a beached whale contained even by and under-armed, undermanned British Army and Territorials. They were besieged and likely would have surrendered in time. And this was even without the Royal Navy getting lucky and slaughtering a large number of troops on their ships in the Channel. They never even gained air superiority over Britain!

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    -
    Posts
    759

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    The "French enmity" was returned in spades by the Germans as a result of Versailles, the hated Occupation of the Rhineland after WWI, and the general history of belligerence between the two...
    The pact of Versailles from the English-French-Russian side was ultra unfair against especially Hungary and Germany
    The Serbs started the war, not the Austro - Hungarian Monarchy and Germany!

    - Germany 13% of the territory lost (in all around 6,5-7 million German population lost from Germany)
    Mainly in industrial areas like the Ruhr area or port city of Danzig (now Gdansk, again in polish hands) which was entirely German area and population of the city
    Partially collapsed the German economy for a while

    - Austria did not lose any territory or population, even won from Hungary 4026 km² of territory
    Partially collapsed the Austrian economy for a while

    - Hungary lost 72%(!) of his territory (and lost the Hungarian population of about 3.415 million person)
    Mainly indrustrial territories lost mostly now called Romania, Slovakia, Serbia,and from Ukraine
    The whole country's economy has collapsed from 1920, still today
    Last edited by imi; 06-25-2016 at 11:15 PM.
    "The consciousness that I am alive, makes me wild dreams every day"
    (Helmut Wolff lieutenant colonel, one who survived the breakout of Budapest)

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    -
    Posts
    759

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    They never even gained air superiority over Britain!
    True the British air force and the british anti aircraft cannons and defended himself quite well.
    But I think a Calais - Dover invasion the part of the Germans would have been feasible, but Hitler made a big mistake that did not deal with a possible British invasion
    "The consciousness that I am alive, makes me wild dreams every day"
    (Helmut Wolff lieutenant colonel, one who survived the breakout of Budapest)

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    251

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    To answer the question, Churchill was certainly no worse than any of the other wartime leaders and better than some. He galvanized his people and left no stone unturned in his quest to help win the war. He supported trying almost any idea that someone might come up with and nothing was too outrageous. As an orator there were none better and he singlehandedly stiffened the resolve of the British people when the days were darkest. He had proved himself a "man of action" in his younger days and as Prime Minister was not afraid to go anywhere to see what the situation on the ground was and in turn this also helped keep up the morale of the men at the front. When all seems lost fate usually intervenes with a giant of a man and Winston Churchill certainly was that man.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,081

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    But the British Commonwealth fought alone against Germany until mid-1941
    Oh yeah , the heroical "phony war" , followed the shamful flight from Dunkirk
    when the USSR became involved in theatres which had nothing to do with the British Commonwealth theatres. Also, Britain provided support to the USSR while the USSR never provided support of any significance to any force outside the USSR.
    It's not true coz the Red Army actually provided a lot of military assistence to allies in far east, keeping and holding the 1 million Kwantung army out of active combat in Pacific within all the war. How many japanses were needed to conquere the entire Malaia? 50 or 100 thousands.
    Besides all the British military supplies to USSR since september 1941 have been immediatelly paid by the GOLD ( unlike the american lend-lise). Britain got a very valiable profit from soviet involvement into the war on allied side coz since june the entire Luftwaffe has been totally switched on barbarossa.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,474

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    Oh yeah , the heroical "phony war" , followed the shamful flight from Dunkirk
    The "Phony War" was fought in 1939, not 41'...

    It's not true coz the Red Army actually provided a lot of military assistence to allies in far east, keeping and holding the 1 million Kwantung army out of active combat in Pacific within all the war. How many japanses were needed to conquere the entire Malaia? 50 or 100 thousands.
    Besides all the British military supplies to USSR since september 1941 have been immediatelly paid by the GOLD ( unlike the american lend-lise). Britain got a very valiable profit from soviet involvement into the war on allied side coz since june the entire Luftwaffe has been totally switched on barbarossa.

    The Soviets held some Japanese forces, but the Chinese Nationalists did far more so....

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,081

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    The "Phony War" was fought in 1939, not 41'...
    Yes, but was the resault much different in 1941 for Britain?
    The Soviets held some Japanese forces, but the Chinese Nationalists did far more so....
    They did but not far more. The chinese fought very limited , episodic and humble partisan warfare in Manchukuo, it can't seriously harm to japanese army ( but japanese got an ideal pretext for ethnic cleansing and war crimes against chineses civil population there). Thus, most of Kwantung army was held in necessary reserve within all the war - although they were overstrenghted for local warfare - the pure strategical aims didn't let them to be used on the pacific front.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,474

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    Yes, but was the resault much different in 1941 for Britain?
    That's a completely unfair assertion. Britain was fighting the Germans on many fronts from the air war over Europe to the Middle East. Their war was a lot less phony than the Soviet one up until 1941...

    They did but not far more. The chinese fought very limited , episodic and humble partisan warfare in Manchukuo, it can't seriously harm to japanese army ( but japanese got an ideal pretext for ethnic cleansing and war crimes against chineses civil population there). Thus, most of Kwantung army was held in necessary reserve within all the war - although they were overstrenghted for local warfare - the pure strategical aims didn't let them to be used on the pacific front.
    The Chinese Nationalist gov't was in complete and total war with the Japanese taking epic casualties everywhere, I'm talking the Imperial Japanese Army in general. The Kwantung Army was routinely used for rest and refit of combat units in China. Also, they were stripped and routinely reduced at the conflict evolved and lost nearly 50% of their manpower throughout the war...
    Last edited by Nickdfresh; 07-04-2016 at 08:24 AM.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,081

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    That's a completely unfair assertion. Britain was fighting the Germans on many fronts from the air war over Europe to the Middle East.
    Yeah, sure from the air war over the ONLY Birtain and against the only italians on the Middle East Name it right. Untill the mid 1941 Britain had no serious combat fight with Heer. Even during the "battle of Britain" Luftwaffe losed less planes then within ONE first month of Barbarossa. Or i'm wrong?
    Their war was a lot less phony than the Soviet one up until 1941...
    Nope Soviet didn't weage a phony war with Germany that period. We were busy by suppliyng the Nazis with oil and gain. Just like US supplued the Imperial Japanese army in war against CHina that time
    The Chinese Nationalist gov't was in complete and total war with the Japanese taking epic casualties everywhere,
    Really? and how much japanese divisions have been destroyed by the chinese nationalist ? They have no even food enough not just ammos and weapon.
    I'm talking the Imperial Japanese Army in general. The Kwantung Army was routinely used for rest and refit of combat units in China. Also, they were stripped and routinely reduced at the conflict evolved and lost nearly 50% of their manpower throughout the war...
    Yes , but even so it was a biggest single army of about 700 000 !! I've asked previously how much japanese were needed to conquer the entire Malay and Singapoor? and how much were needed to conquer the entire Phillipines? That's might be an interesting comparition
    Last edited by Chevan; 07-04-2016 at 12:28 PM.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,474

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    Yeah, sure from the air war over the ONLY Birtain and against the only italians on the Middle East Name it right.
    How do you think they got the Heer there?

    Untill the mid 1941 Britain had no serious combat fight with Heer. Even during the "battle of Britain" Luftwaffe losed less planes then within ONE first month of Barbarossa. Or i'm wrong?
    They also barely had an army. They had a small volunteer force that was seriously under-equipped prior to the Battle for France. They didn't have a lot of options. I'm not sure about the aircraft numbers actually...

    Nope Soviet didn't weage a phony war with Germany that period. We were busy by suppliyng the Nazis with oil and gain. Just like US supplued the Imperial Japanese army in war against CHina that time
    The U.S. began an embargo based on Japanese actions in China that led to Pearl Harbor...

    Really? and how much japanese divisions have been destroyed by the chinese nationalist ? They have no even food enough not just ammos and weapon.
    IDK the number of divisions. But they (the IJA) lost between 500,000 to over 1,000,000 men. The first est. is from Japanese sources and the second one was a PRC study...

    Yes , but even so it was a biggest single army of about 700 000 !! I've asked previously how much japanese were needed to conquer the entire Malay and Singapoor? and how much were needed to conquer the entire Phillipines? That's might be an interesting comparition
    It is an interesting comparison. But remember those defeated armies were blockaded and lacked much in the way of support. There were only about 15,000 American soldiers and marines in the Philippines at the time with the rest being Filipino under American command...

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,344

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    Yes, but was the resault much different in 1941 for Britain?
    Yes, after the Battle of Britain ended whatever faint hope there was for Sea Lion to land troops in Britain, let alone defeat Britain, and British Commowealth forces in North Africa engaged Germany there while the Royal Navy stopped the Kriegsmarine controlling the oceans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    he chinese fought very limited , episodic and humble partisan warfare in Manchukuo, it can't seriously harm to japanese army ( but japanese got an ideal pretext for ethnic cleansing and war crimes against chineses civil population there). Thus, most of Kwantung army was held in necessary reserve within all the war - although they were overstrenghted for local warfare - the pure strategical aims didn't let them to be used on the pacific front.
    Japan had 51 IJN divisions in China / Manchuria in the lead up to the Pacific War in December 1941. The IJN could spare only 11 divisions for the southern thrust. So, the Chinese held 40 Japanese divisions in China / Manchuria, which is more than the Soviets did by themselves on the Manchurian border. You can't dismiss the Chinese contribution while extolling the Soviet contribution in holding Japanese troops away from other theatres. Moreover, the Chinese were fighting the Japanese divisions they were holding, while the Soviets weren't.

    IIRC about five or six IJN divisions were returned from the Pacific to China in 1942 or early 1943 to deal with the continuing conflict there.
    Last edited by Rising Sun*; 07-05-2016 at 06:36 AM.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •